Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State’s compassionate appointment policy does not distinguish between a son and a daughter and that the expression “first child” means the first-born child, irrespective of gender.
The Court rejected the claim of a son who argued that he should be considered for compassionate appointment because he was the only male child in the family, despite having two elder sisters.
Background of the Case
The case was filed by the son of a deceased government employee who had died in 1998.
At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was only one year old. He had two elder sisters and was the only son in the family.
The petitioner claimed that since he was a minor when his father died, his case should be considered under Clause 3.2 of the State’s compassionate appointment policy, which provides a special provision where the first child is a minor.
His claim had earlier been rejected by the Single Judge, following which he approached the Division Bench.
‘First Child’ Means First-Born Child
The Division Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke and Justice Pushpendra Yadav examined the relevant provision of the compassionate appointment policy.
The Court held that the policy specifically refers to the “first child” and does not create any separate category for boys and girls.
Since the petitioner had two elder sisters, he could not be treated as the first child merely because he was the only son.
No Preference To Son Over Daughter
The High Court rejected the argument that being the only male child should give the petitioner preferential treatment.
The Court observed that the policy does not differentiate between girls and boys and that introducing such a distinction would be contrary to the constitutional principle prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender.
Thus, the birth order of the children is relevant—not whether the first-born child is a son or daughter.
Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Hereditary Right
The Court also reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right that automatically passes to the legal heirs of a deceased government employee.
Its primary purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing financial hardship due to the sudden death of its earning member.
Therefore, such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because the deceased was a government employee.
Delay Also Weighed Against the Claim
The Court noted that the employee had died in 1998, while the claim before the Court was being pursued more than two decades later.
The applicable policy provided that a dependent could generally be considered for compassionate appointment if a post was available within seven years from the date of death.
Although the policy contained an exception for a minor first child, the petitioner could not rely on that exception because he was not the first child.
The Court also observed that the family had survived for more than two decades without compassionate appointment, which showed that the original objective of providing immediate financial assistance could no longer justify such a belated claim.
Court’s Decision
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.
The Court held that:
- The policy does not distinguish between sons and daughters.
- “First child” means the first-born child.
- Being the only son does not make a person the first child.
- Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a hereditary right.
- A claim made decades after the employee’s death cannot ordinarily be justified when the purpose of the scheme is immediate financial assistance.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is important because it:
- Reaffirms gender equality in compassionate appointment policies.
- Clarifies that “first child” means the first-born child irrespective of gender.
- Prevents authorities from giving preference to a son merely because he is the only male child.
- Reiterates that compassionate appointment is intended to address immediate financial hardship.
- Clarifies that compassionate appointment is not an automatic or hereditary entitlement.
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that a son cannot claim preference over an elder daughter merely because he is the only male child. Where a government policy uses the term “first child”, it refers to the first-born child without regard to gender.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle of equality and ensures that compassionate appointment schemes are implemented according to their actual wording rather than through gender-based assumptions.
